mapoklwrote: Right you don't deny access because of their background, but because the place they currently live. Big difference. like changing "i won't sell food to Jews" to i won't sell to anybody living in Israel"

Yes, exactly, it is a very big difference.

The protection of the right against being discriminated in that way in a restaurant are not universal human rights, they are specific rights that particular countries have decided to grant.

And in the same way, the decision made for original creative works for all except a small handful of countries is that the creator gets the right to grant the right to copy and distribute their work, and that not granting the right to copy and distribute is the same as denying the right to copy and distribute.

The internet gives us the tools to trample the rights of the creators of the works, but the fact that we have the ability to trample their rights does not on its own make it a good thing to trample their rights.

The counter-argument is the one that if the license is not made available in a country, then it does no harm to view a bootleg copy.

However, bear in mind that some ways of viewing bootleg copies do quite clearly do harm: those are viewing bootleg copies at ad-supported leech streaming sites. Leech streaming sites do make series available in regions where they are unlicensed, but they also make the series available in regions where they are licensed, and anyone viewing series at those sites directly supports the head to head competition against licensed work, by giving that site advertising revenue.

As far as the argument between the copyright purist position and the "no harm, no foul" position, I'm not going to address it ~ this makes the 152,317th time the discussion has taken place in the internet in the past 12 months{*}, and its unlikely anybody reading this is going to change their mind about it. However, for those who do adopt the "no harm, no foul" position, if they are really a fan of the work of the original creators, they should, in fact, actually do no harm and avoid patronizing ad-supported leech streaming sites.

I hope Muromi-san is actually a deep dark psychological series with a misleading front.

Well i can promise you it's not exactly what you would expect after seeing attached image or reading description.

agila61wrote:
The protection of the right against being discriminated in that way in a restaurant are not universal human rights, they are specific rights that particular countries have decided to grant.

From wiki: "The right to freedom from discrimination is an internationally recognised human right and enshrines the principle of egalitarianism. The right to freedom from discrimination is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights." You can goggle mentioned acts to check.

agila61
And in the same way, the decision made for original creative works for all except a small handful of countries is that the creator gets the right to grant the right to copy and distribute their work, and that not granting the right to copy and distribute is the same as denying the right to copy and distribute.

Denying some group of people access to sth, without any real reason(like technical etc) and just because you're a jerk and have right to is discrimination. I don't know what you wanted to prove here.

Maybe in your country it's custom that, when other person threat you like shit, trample you and spit at you, only because he is a jerk and have some right to do it. All You do is respectfully bow down, and on knees you beg him for recognition, while he continues to do what he wants. I'm not.

If there is a legal way I support it. But don't except me to support and care for Funi right when they threat me as non existing shit. Do you know that not so long ago if i tried to access www.funimation.com/ i was without any msg directed to www.navarre.com/ ? It was not a lvl when videos where unavailable. It was a level when they disabled whole site. I wasn't even allowed to check what shows they licenced, read announcement etc.

Not to mention that evoiding RR is not the same as pirating Anime. The only reason i can't watch Muromi-san here is not that i don't pay for it(which i did) but the fact of existing RR. If you are granted a right to live in house but are not allowed to have door keys i think it's right to go through window.

And please don't mistake creator who create stuff with copyright holders who don't create even one dot, but earn over 90% of profits.

mapoklwrote: From wiki: "The right to freedom from discrimination is an internationally recognised human right and enshrines the principle of egalitarianism. The right to freedom from discrimination is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in international human rights law through its inclusion in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights." You can goggle mentioned acts to check.

Those acts also define what they actually mean by "discrimination":

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

It goes without saying that just because a right is included in the UDHR, that does not make it a right in law in every country. It is a declaration but, for example, in much of the United State the "right" of people to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests is violated more often than it is respected.

But more to the point, the main right you refer to in protection against discrimination is to be granted "equal protection of the law". And obviously respecting the rights of all creators from any copyright convention signatory country is offering equal protection of the law.

Whether allowing private citizens running a private establishment to engage in racial or ethnic or other forms of personal discrimination in refusing individuals service is or is not providing equal protection under the law depends upon whether the law in that country treats that private establishment as a private space, or as a public space under the stewardship of a private citizen.

And please don't mistake creator who create stuff with copyright holders who don't create even one dot, but earn over 90% of profits.

I think you are cribbing your claim from an argument about manga, because for anime, without the production committee agreeing to fund the anime, not one frame of animation is produced. The production committee hires the artists. Its not like a novelist writing a book and then having their agent send it around to try to find a publisher.

Indeed, (1) anime is commercial entertainment, its not fine art, so anime series are created because of the hope for profit; and (2) the earnings of the member of the production committee that holds the rights to the original content are a share of royalties, which is earned before profit and, indeed, is earned whether or not there even is a profit. Its a share of the gross rights revenue.

Let's imagine situation: Disney after getting right to Star Wars decided to forbid production, distribution and anything related to Star Wars, as rightholder. No movie could be publicly show, no selling would be allowed.Technically law allow to do it.

I would think it's wrong, you would just say that what they do is good and lawful, and everybody who want to preserve it is criminal.

That's the whole point. There are people, like you who thinks that just because you are owner of sth, be it anime, classic movie, whole world-known franchise, Picasso painting or whole Roman Colloseum you can do anything you want with it. Destroy it, Change it or discriminate access to it to chosen groups.
There are also people who believe otherwise. That just because you are owner it doesn't meant that you can do anything you want. Even if i'm owner of 18th century i can't just destroy it, even law forbid it. Yea i know that there are many people who violate it, more then often actually. But what they do is not right. And even if sth is allowed by Law it doesn't always mean it's right to do. Just because in 18th century in US slavery was allowed don't mean that slave trading was right to do.
That's why this discussion can take forever.

On the other hand. Not allowing some group of people access to sth, without any reason, then whim or speculation, and only just because it's possible is discrimination. Politics like to ignore uncomfortable facts, but it doesn't change that you discriminate people because of the place they live. Just because so not long ago there were no sex-preference discrimination acts and homosexuality was treated as sickness in Law doesn't mean that sex-preference discrimination didn't exist then.

agila61
I think you are cribbing your claim from an argument about manga, because for anime, without the production committee agreeing to fund the anime, not one frame of animation is produced. The production committee hires the artists. Its not like a novelist writing a book and then having their agent send it around to try to find a publisher.

Indeed, (1) anime is commercial entertainment, its not fine art, so anime series are created because of the hope for profit; and (2) the earnings of the member of the production committee that holds the rights to the original content are a share of royalties, which is earned before profit and, indeed, is earned whether or not there even is a profit. Its a share of the gross rights revenue.

It's actually for music, but

You have interesting definition of fine art.
But do you know that Michelangelo also painted Sistine Chapel fresco only as hired artist? It's not like he first painted fresco and then look for sponsor. He will get paid as long as it satisfied producer, regardless if it will be success in bringing believers or not. Without pope decision not even one mm of fresco would be drawn. But still is't fine art, still the Michelangelo is artist and not the pope. And i don't know if church can just destroy it on whim. And it was also drawn for profit, namely as advertisement of Church, to bring believers(and their power and money)

The fact is still, that artist and creator get only part of that what right-holder get. So i understan that for you novelist who first write a book then look for publisher creates art, but novelist who are sponsored by publisher from the start or paid on advance don't create art any more?

mapoklwrote: Let's imagine situation: Disney after getting right to Star Wars decided to forbid production, distribution and anything related to Star Wars, as rightholder. No movie could be publicly show, no selling would be allowed.Technically law allow to do it.

I would think it's wrong

Whether or not the decision is wrong, whether or not the people who originally brought Star Wars into existence by funding the movie or the people that allowed that horrible Star Wars Episode One movie to be made to cash in on their intellectual property made a mistake to hand the decision to Disney in return for money ...

... and even independently of whether political representatives of an outraged public passed a law to change the rules so they couldn't do that ...

... its their moral and ethical right to make that mistake. The work would not exist in the first place if it were not for them. They have the moral right to do the wrong thing with the work, as well as the moral right to do the right thing with the work. They have the moral and ethical right to cash in on the creative work and hand the decision making to somebody else who proceeds to "do the wrong thing" with the work.

We've recognized that moral and ethical right in law, creating a legal right, in order to encourage the creation of new original work. Their rights are not founded in an argument that they can be expected to do the right thing with the work, so doing the wrong thing with a work doesn't change their rights to do as they wish.

By contrast, for somebody who has bought a heritage-listed property, the heritage listing is recognizing a public interest in the preservation of that structure as a part of the region's historical legacy.

We could argue endlessly the hard side of the argument for anime in particular, where the bootlegging does not seem as if it can feasibly cause any commercial harm. And I'm not particularly interested in arguing those cases, since what I am more interested in are behavior that harm the livelihoods of the creative artists working in the field.

But when talking about bootleggers who are competing head to head with legitimate licensors, that's not a hard case at all. Its wrong to funnel money to ad-supported leech streaming sites that stream anime to countries where the same anime is licensed by watching anime on those sites.

Its still wrong if you do not happen to live in a country where that anime is licensed. It is, indeed, still wrong if the anime you are watching is not the one competing head to head. If you are providing advertising revenue to a site that streams Sword Art Online to

You could be watching Legend of the Legendary Heroes on an ad-supported leech streaming site that streams Sword Art Online to the America, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and/or South Africa, then that's wrong, even if you are watching Sword Art Online in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it is unlicensed, or even if you happen to be watching Legend of the Legendary Heroes. There are scale economies to running a leech streaming site, and giving it any advertising revenues from anywhere is damaging the creative work of the licensed anime.

agila61 It is, indeed, still wrong if the anime you are watching is not the one competing head to head. If you are providing advertising revenue to a site that streams Sword Art Online to

You could be watching Legend of the Legendary Heroes on an ad-supported leech streaming site that streams Sword Art Online to the America, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and/or South Africa, then that's wrong, even if you are watching Sword Art Online in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it is unlicensed, or even if you happen to be watching Legend of the Legendary Heroes. There are scale economies to running a leech streaming site, and giving it any advertising revenues from anywhere is damaging the creative work of the licensed anime.

Long time ago, or actually in 2007 i registered on some pirate anime streaming site, or leeching site how you call it. Don't know if they really earn enough revenue from ads to call it profit or only get barely enough to cover server cost. They streamed fansubs, what made diffrence was easy access to anime and quality that other streaming site couldn't compare too. Well i continue to watch anime on that site even now and i pay them for that. And there were and are other like me here, i think a lot actually.

You would say that site damaged creators and anime industry? Without it we would get more licensed show? It limited the market?

And you know what? It's the same streaming site you and i write right now.
Don't know how huge impact crunchy had on US anime market. But for me and others outside of North America there made world shaking difference. For me the only legal anime except pokemon and bayblade are these that are licenced here. It didn't destroy industry it moved it forward. It proved that streaming anime could be profitable, it proved that there is a lot people who want to pay for that. Without that leeching site, you would be happy if any anime would get legal simulcast. And you would pay 5$ per episode at least.

You speak of some streaming sites, but other then crunchy i watch none, and surely i don't pay for illegal version. Just use torrents. The reason that i pay crunchyroll even if i can lawfully(you read that right, dear) download they releases on the net is because i want to support the creator and support the way they want to distribute anime(i mean worldwide licences here). The other reason is Gintama.
I could paid twice or ...(better not tell) that amount if i could actually watch all catalog titles and licensed anime here.

I never said that creators or right holders should just post they work for free. I will pay for it, if you let me do it, damn it!

In fair price, in fair way, in fair quality and in fair time. These four thing, and there will be no problem with fansubs or pirates. Only handful of people would be left, but these wouldn't pay any way so no lose here. Because it's bullshit that people would always choose pirate stuff because it's free. People will and want to pay as long as simple criteria is met. And if crunchy can do it, others can do it too.

If you ask about fair price i consider that Crunchy subscription is not fair, but cheap. I really sometimes wonder how they actually earn money...

mapoklwrote:
Long time ago, or actually in 2007 i registered on some pirate anime streaming site, or leeching site how you call it. Don't know if they really earn enough revenue from ads to call it profit or only get barely enough to cover server cost.

Few pirate streaming sites have much in the way of bandwidth costs, because they don't host the videos themselves, so they only have to support the bandwidth for the pages that display the series lists and frame the embedded video from free video hosting sites.

mapoklwrote:
Long time ago, or actually in 2007 i registered on some pirate anime streaming site, or leeching site how you call it. Don't know if they really earn enough revenue from ads to call it profit or only get barely enough to cover server cost.

Few pirate streaming sites have much in the way of bandwidth costs, because they don't host the videos themselves, so they only have to support the bandwidth for the pages that display the series lists and frame the embedded video from free video hosting sites.

Did you read the whole post or just read few first lines? If you need clarification, this one I'm talking about hosted the videos. I know there are some pirate sited that actually are not real streaming sites but bunch of links to hidden youtube or similar videos. Most people know it too. I don't use them, and that''s not the point of the post above.

mapoklwrote:
Did you read the whole post or just read few first lines? If you need clarification, this one I'm talking about hosted the videos. I know there are some pirate sited that actually are not real streaming sites but bunch of links to hidden youtube or similar videos. Most people know it too. I don't use them, and that''s not the point of the post above.

I read your entire message, but apparently missed this part:

And you know what? It's the same streaming site you and i write right now.

Which is odd, because when I read "2007", I was thinking, "I bet he's talking about CR".

FYI, CR wasn't covering their hosting costs with the ads. That was one of the reasons they sought to go legit.